If thats your definition

Wtf

Ok what's your definition

Nice <:emoji_22:793822836404781066>

Holy shit took me less then a minute to win

Exploitation of countries/nations for the benefit of capital

Boo hoo that's so retarded

that’s so bad

Like nigga this isn't 19th century colonialism

Lol what was the east india company

And capital isn't some autonomous force, it's tied to the state

Capital can totally exist outside the state

It was clearly still part of British state

Capital is the power of the collective

the state

is the collective

Same thing

The company went against the common interests of the british state all the time

And who won in the end?

It was basically a massive banking conglomerate

Why does it matter who won

Capital can't usually afford to go independently from the state

It will eventually be absorbed by buerocratic apparatus

Even today we can't speak of fully international capital elite

As American megacorporations are still in heavy ties with US government

Bro capital is inherently international

Wtf do you think international banking is

This is such a 2016 take

Nigga capital can act autonomous between different states only when one state is powerful enough to establish hegemony over others

If it wasn't for US hegemony over the western world you would see far less "international capital"

There is literally thousands of examples of instances of capital going against the state its working for

You can tell me all about it in VC

I dont even see what we are arguing about

Like wtf is your contention

My point is that imperialism is good for the state and your definition is extremely specific and autistic

British imperialism was extremely good for your state as well

Without it England would be backwards hellhole of Europe

We wouldent have a shit ton of pakis and nogs if not for British Imperalism

See that's what we gonna debate

I say it's not fault of Imperialism but you guys liberalizing

Imperalism is inherently liberal as it imports cultures and peoples dude